22 25.08. 2026 Ct. No. 18 Ab IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE. WPA 22251 of 2026 Ashish Ghosh and another Vs. The State of West Bengal and others. --------------- Mr. Anindya Lahiri, Mr. Subit Kumar Mondal, Ms. Pranati Das. … for the petitioners. Mr. D. N. Roy, Ld. GP, Ms. Marry Dutta, Ms. Sreyanshi Majumdar. … for the State. 1. The affidavit of service filed today is taken on record. 2. The petitioners have preferred an application before the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal being OA 661 of 2017, which is pending. The reliefs as prayed for in the writ petition are identical to the reliefs prayed in the application before the Tribunal. 3. Since the matter has been pending for last nine years, presently the petitioners are aggrieved that they do not have a Forum since the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal is non-functional since September 9, 2025. 4. However, since the petitioners’ prayers in the writ petition are identical to the prayers in OA 661 of 2017, this Court is bound by the decision of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in WP.ST 209 of 2025 with WP.ST 210 of 2025 (Anindya Sudar Das vs. State of 2 West Bengal & Ors.). 5. Mr. Lahiri, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners, submits that his clients would be losing a Forum if this writ petition is not taken up. He has also placed reliance on a decision of this Hon’ble Court in WPA 27327 of 2025 (Md. Manidul Islam vs. The State of West Bengal and others). 6. According to him, the situation in this case is different from the one in Anindya Sundar Das (supra) inasmuch as there is no order under challenge in the present case while in Anindya Sudar Das (Supra), the order was under challenge. In view thereof, the writ petition should be entertained. 7. Irrespective of whether a challenge has been made or not, this much is clear that since OA 661 of 2017 is pending consideration since 2017, it does not seem that there is any overt urgency in the matter after lapse of nine years. 8. In view thereof, this writ petition cannot be entertained and is, accordingly, dismissed. 9. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. 10. I make it clear that I have not gone into the merits of the case. 11. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis. (Reetobroto Kumar Mitra, J.) 3